Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 01/09/2006 10:44:33 AM PST by jmc813
The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.
James Madison
The Washington political scandals dominating the news in recent weeks may be disheartening, but they cannot be considered surprising. We live in a time when the U.S. government is the largest and most powerful state in the history of the world. Today's federal government consists of fifteen huge departments, hundreds of agencies, thousands of programs, and millions of employees. It spends 2.4 trillion dollars in a single year. The possibilities for corruption in such an immense and unaccountable institution are endless.
Americans understandably expect ethical conduct from their elected officials in Washington. But the whole system is so out of control that it's simply unrealistic to place faith in each and every government official in a position to sell influence. The larger the federal government becomes, the more it controls who wins and who loses in our society. The temptation for lobbyists to buy votes-- and the temptation for politicians to sell them-- is enormous. Indicting one crop of politicians and bringing in another is only a temporary solution. The only effective way to address corruption is to change the system itself, by radically downsizing the power of the federal government in the first place. Take away the politicians' power and you take away the very currency of corruption.
Undoubtedly the recent revelations will ignite new calls for campaign finance reform. However, we must recognize that that campaign finance laws place restrictions only on individuals, not politicians. Politicians will continue to tax and spend, meaning they will continue to punish some productive Americans while rewarding others with federal largesse. The same vested special interests will not go away, and the same influence peddling will happen every day on Capitol Hill.
The reason is very simple: when the federal government redistributes trillions of dollars from some Americans to others, countless special interests inevitably will fight for the money. The rise in corruption in Washington simply mirrors the rise in federal spending. The fundamental problem is not with campaigns or politicians primarily, but rather with popular support for the steady shift from a relatively limited, constitutional federal government to the huge leviathan of today.
We need to get money out of government. Only then will money not be important in politics. It's time to reconsider exactly what we want the federal government to be in our society. So long as it remains the largest and most powerful institution in the nation, it will remain endlessly susceptible to corruption.
Hey! Ron Paul hass finally shut up about the war and started doin' what he does best - fightin' government bloat.
And he's completely correct here!!!
We need to get Ron Paul out of Government.
Not a priority as he is rather unimportant.
You may want to ping your libertarian list to this.
I know that several freepers, myself included, do not like his foreign policy views, but when it comes to domestic issues, he is second to none. Do you disagree with this article or any of Paul's other domestic positions?
The only Congressman worth a damn.
The only Congressman worth a damn.
Cannot be repeated often enough, IMO.
My rough calculations say that Uncle has to spend approximately $100,000 per SECOND ( including weekends) to spend the Federal budget in a year.
1) Raise Congressional salaries to $5 million/year ($10 million for the Senate).
2) Require all incumbent campaigns to be funded entirely out of the individual representative's salary.
If they run an efficient campaign, they end up wealthier.
Funding new candidate campaigns is trickier. Allowing outside contributions but limiting spending to, say, 75% of the officeholder's salary might do the trick. Special interests can buy a candidate, but not an officeholder.
Dr. Paul, as usual, is 100% correct.
Paul / Tancredo in 2008
Ditto that. His remedy for political corruption is sound -- reduce the size, reach, and power of government.
There's something to be said for your suggestion, but what would a non-incumbent do?
And it is even rather left. The anti-money undercurrent.
Money is and has always been part of politics and the US. We make money. We spend money.
A lot of it. Nothing wrong with that.
As long as we have a governmetn that hadns out special privileges and special favors, we will ahve people like Abramoff gaming the system. The only solution is to cut back government to Constitutional limits.
The people of south Texas believe R. Paul is their opposing "BIG GOVERNMENT" SUPPORT.I'm just one of them that elected him.Ron Paul is a priority and very important!!I'd bet-- you like a Representative with big white teeth and a handsome grin, That pisses on your leg and tells you it's raining.
No I'd like one that isn't a leftist like Ron Paul.
God Bless Dr Ron Paul.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
nice post. ron paul says it quite well.
LMAO.
Tall, you obviously haven't taken the quiz.
This is so true, and so obvious.
Yet I doubt that any commentators at the national level will so much as mention it as they try to excuse everyone involved and blame the media for making it a big story.
We're in sad shape as a nation if there's not another Congressman to back up Ron Paul, a true American patriot.
Obviously you don't even know what a leftist is. LMAO!
Bump!
That is what Ron Paul has stated as well.
His views are congruent with the most extreme Cindy Sheehan leftist camp.
Even on this issue his stance is simplistic left anti-money superficial rhetoric.
I don't care what you say leftists think. You don't know what a leftist is if you call Ron Paul a leftist.
He differs little from Cindy Sheehan for example in his views on US foreign policy.
well, let's praise the messenge, if not the man. I don't know what his foreign policy views are, but I like what I have read here very much.
What difference does it make that he opposes the war in Iraq? You don't have to be a leftist to oppose that cluster farg.
US foreign policy is a complete disaster. You don't have to be a leftist to not like the mess we have made of the world.
So far, leftist to you means anyone opposed to Bush's war and Bush's foreign policy. Bush is much farther left than Ron Paul if you know what a leftist is.
He believed Afghanistan in 2001 was a war for oil and that there was no reason to attack Afghanistan. He was as extreme in his left ling views as Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan.
It is not that he oppsoes the war it is his reasons for and comments on that are fully leftist school of thought.
That's a great quiz!
That quiz identifies Libertarians perfectly: the ideology of perfect selfishness. They're snuggled right up next to the leftists on social issues, but conservatives on fiscal issues.
How so?
Most Libertarians are pro-life. The remainder believes that it should be decided by the states, as it was before Roe vs Wade.
Welfare, government education, handouts would all be abolished.
Gay marriage? They don't deserve special rights from the government, but it's none of the government's business if they live together in a domestic partnership.
In your opinion, who is more to the left when it comes to domestic policy, Rep. Paul or President Bush?
We are individualists and don't believe that it takes a villiage, Hillary.
Ron Paul. Ron Paul is consistent with Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan in outlook.
Could you please name one domestic issue in which Paul is consistent with Moore?
The idea that money should have no importance in politics is a leftist idea and is consistent with Moore.
Hints: Look up the word "leftist" before responding. Being anti-war is not in the definition. Always pushing for smaller government is certainly not in the definition.
So that one statement makes him more liberal domestically than No-Child-Left-Behind-Medicare-Prescription-Benefit-Bush in your opinion? I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
Ron Paul leftist lunacy from November 2001
_____
The predominant nationality of the terrorists was Saudi Arabian. Yet for political and economic reasons, even with the lack of cooperation from the Saudi government, we have ignored that country in placing blame. The Afghan people did nothing to deserve another war. The Taliban, of course, is closely tied to bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but so are the Pakistanis and the Saudis. Even the United States was a supporter of the Taliban's rise to power, and as recently as August of 2001, we talked oil pipeline politics with them.
The recent French publication of bin Laden, The Forbidden Truth revealed our most recent effort to secure control over Caspian Sea oil in collaboration with the Taliban. According to the two authors, the economic conditions demanded by the U.S. were turned down and led to U.S. military threats against the Taliban.
It has been known for years that Unocal, a U.S. company, has been anxious to build a pipeline through northern Afghanistan, but it has not been possible due to the weak Afghan central government. We should not be surprised now that many contend that the plan for the UN to "nation build" in Afghanistan is a logical and important consequence of this desire. The crisis has merely given those interested in this project an excuse to replace the government of Afghanistan. Since we don't even know if bin Laden is in Afghanistan, and since other countries are equally supportive of him, our concentration on this Taliban "target" remains suspect by many.
___
That is pure Michael Moore style leftist conspiracy theory. It is the premise of Farenheit 911. Paul cites French leftist conspiracy theorists.
You know the mantra -- oil bad, business bad, US corrupt, war for oil.
Paul clearly states his complete agreement with this outlook.
What an idiotic thing to say. Despite my disagreement with Paul on some foreign policy issues, he is exactly what we need in DC, just in much larger numbers. He is damn near the last vestige of respect for the Constitution that we have. Is that your goal? To get rid of everyone with respect for the Constitution and their oath to uphold it and defend it? What exactly do you think is wrong with his statement?
Ping!
"No I'd like one that isn't a leftist like Ron Paul."
Ron Paul is a contitutionalist not a leftist. The Republican party is terminally corrupt just like the Dims.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.